This disclosure generally relates to fabricating and reworking structures, and deals more particularly with a patch having multiple regions with differing fracture toughnesses for controlling the advance of a disbond in the patch, as well as to a method of controlling the advance of the disbond.
Composite structures sometimes have localized areas containing one or more inconsistencies that may require rework in order to bring the structure within design tolerances.
In the past, one rework process was performed using a patch that was placed over the inconsistent area and secured to the parent structure using mechanical fasteners. This rework technique was desirable because the condition of the patch could be monitored over time by visually inspecting the fasteners. However, the use of fasteners may increase aircraft weight and/or drag on the aircraft, and may be esthetically undesirable in some applications.
In other applications, rework patches have been secured to a parent structure using a bonded joint, however this technique may also require the use of mechanical fasteners that provide secondary load paths forming an arrestment mechanism to limit the growth of an inconsistency. Furthermore, changes in a bonded joint securing a rework patch on a parent structure, such as the advance of a disbond, may not be easily monitored over time because the attaching mechanism of the joint or joint interface may not be visible.
Accordingly, there is a need for a bonded patch used to rework an area of a structure that controls possible changes in the bond joint in a manner that allows the changes to be detected and/or predicted over time. There is also a need for a method of controlling the advance of a disbond in the patch.
The disclosed embodiments provide a composite rework patch for reworking structures without the need for mechanical fasteners. The rework patch includes features that allow visual inspection of the condition of the reworked area over time and permit reliable prediction of future bond joint changes. Because the condition of the reworked area may be visually inspected and predictions made about future bond condition, the bonded rework patch and visual inspection technique may allow certification of the rework by aircraft certifying authorities. The patch includes multiple regions and separation zones having differing fracture toughnesses which aid in controlling the advance of a disbond in the patch.
According to one disclosed embodiment, a patch is provided for reworking an inconsistent area in a structure. The patch includes a laminate patch and a layer of adhesive for bonding the laminate patch to the structure. The laminate patch includes a first disbond control region, a second disbond control region around the first region, and a separation zone between the first and second control regions. The separation zone has a fracture toughness greater than the fracture toughness of the first control region. The second control region and the separation zone may be arranged substantially concentrically around the first control region. In one application, the fracture toughness of the separation zone is at least approximately 25% greater than the fracture toughness of the first control region. The laminate patch includes a plurality of composite plies wherein the plies in the first control region and the plies in the separation zone respectively possess differing characteristics related to fracture toughness.
According to another disclosed embodiment, a composite laminate patch is provided which is adapted to be bonded to a composite structure for reworking an inconsistent area of the structure. The laminate patch comprises a first control region, at least a second control region surrounding the first region, and at least a first separation zone contiguous to and disposed between the first and second control regions. The first control region substantially covers the inconsistent area of the structure for controlling the advance of a disbond in the patch. The second control region is ring shaped and controls the advance of a disbond from the first control region. The ring-shaped separation zone is contiguous to and disposed between the first and second control regions and functions to control the advance of the disbond from the first region to the second region. The first separation zone has an interlaminar fracture toughness that is greater than that of the first control region. The second control region has an interlaminar fracture toughness that is greater than that of the first control region. The second control region and the first separation zone may be arranged substantially concentrically around the first control region.
According to still another embodiment, a composite laminate patch is provided that is adapted to be bonded to a composite structure for reworking an inconsistent area of the structure. The laminate patch comprises an inner-control region, N number of outer control regions surrounding the inner control region, and N number of separation zones. The inner control region substantially covers the inconsistent area and is operable for controlling the advance of a disbond in the patch. The outer control regions surround the inner control region and function to control the outward advance of the disbond beyond the inner control region. The separation zones respectively surround the control regions and are operable for defusing fracture energy of the disbond as the disbond advances beyond a control region.
According to a disclosed method embodiment, the advance of a disbond is controlled in a laminate patch that is bonded to a structure covering an inconsistent area. The method includes forming first and second control regions and forming a separation zone in the patch between the first and second control regions. The first control region overlies the inconsistent area of the structure and is operable for controlling the advance of a disbond. The second control region in the patch surrounds the first control region and is operable for controlling the advance of a disbond outwardly beyond the first control region. The separation zone is operable for defusing fracture energy of the disbond as the disbond advances from the first control region to the second control region.
The disclosed embodiments satisfy the need for a bonded composite rework patch and related method that allow reworking an inconsistent area in a composite structure, in which the condition of the rework can be visually monitored, and a change of the bonded joint may be predicted based on the visual inspection.
Referring now to
The composite rework patch 30 comprises a laminate layer 32 which overlies the inconsistent area 22 and is bonded to the composite structure 24 by a layer 34 of a structural adhesive forming a bond joint 42. The size of the composite rework patch 30 may vary with the application and the dimensions of the inconsistent area 22. The adhesive layer 34 divides the bond joint 42 and inconsistent area 22 into first, second and third control regions 36, 38, 40 respectively, that may provide a graceful reduction of transition loads transmitted between the composite structure 24 and the composite rework patch 30. The first control region 36 is centrally located over the inconsistent area 22, and the second and third control regions 38, 40 may respectively comprise a pair of substantially concentric rings surrounding the centrally located first control region 36. While the control regions 36, 38, 40 are shown as being generally circular in the disclosed embodiment, a variety of other shapes are possible. Also, in other embodiments, the composite rework patch 30 may have only two control regions 36, 38, or may have more than three control regions 36, 38, 40.
The first control region 36 may exhibit favorable in-plane adhesive stresses. The second control region 38 may be referred to as a durability region and any disbond within this region between the laminate layer 32 and the composite structure 24 may need to be evaluated and quantified in order to determine whether rework should be performed. The third control region 40, which may be dominated by in-plane shear and peeling moments, may affect the behavior of the entire structural bond between the laminate layer 32 and composite structure 24.
Referring now particularly to
In one embodiment, circumferential gaps “g” may be formed between adhesive sections 44, 46, 48 to aid in arresting the growth of potential debonding between the laminate layer 32 and the composite structure 24. A filler 50 may be placed in one or both of the gaps “g” to aid in the arrestment.
The properties of each of the adhesive sections 44, 46, 48 may be tailored in a manner that affects the rate at which first, second and third control regions 36, 38, 40 of the bond joint 42 respectively release strain energy. Tailoring of each of the adhesive sections 44, 46, 48 may be achieved by altering the dimensions of the adhesive sections 44, 46, 48, such as thickness “t” or width “w”, or by altering the form of the film, paste, scrim, etc., as well as by altering the structural properties of the adhesive layer, such as fracture toughness, peel or shear properties, or by providing the gap “g” between the adhesive sections 44, 46, 48. Fracture toughness may be described as the general resistance of a material having a crack to delaminate and is a quantitative way of expressing a material's resistance to brittle fracture when a crack is present. Materials having a relatively high value of fracture toughness may be more likely to undergo ductile fracture, while materials having relatively low values of fracture toughness may be more likely to undergo brittle fracture. A spacer or filler 50 may be interposed between adhesive sections 44, 46, 48 to aid in arresting disbond growth.
The use of the tailored adhesive sections 44, 46, 48 may result in a bonded composite rework patch 30 that is divided into multiple control regions 36, 38, 40 that release strain energy at different rates. The first, second, and third control regions 36, 38, 40 provide for a graceful reduction of transition loads between the laminate layer 32 and the composite structure 24, which may not only allow prediction of a course of disbond extension, but can allow assessment of the condition of the composite rework patch 30 through simple visual inspection, or other non-destructive inspection techniques. Although three control regions 36, 38, 40 are shown and discussed, more or less than three control regions may be possible.
The first control region 36 of the composite rework patch 30 which overlies the inconsistent area 22 exhibits favorable in-plane stresses that may suppress the stress concentration around the boundary of a disbond of the bond joint 42. The global adhesive stresses within the first control region 36 may reduce the strain energy release rate necessary for extension of a disbond under maximum load limits applied to the composite structure 24.
The characteristics of the composite rework patch 30 within the second control region 38 may result in the release of strain energy at a rate greater than that of the first control region 36. Any disbond that may occur in the bond joint 42 within the second control region 38 may be anticipated by a fatigue durability disbond curve (not shown) which defines the work input required to initiate disbond growth. The characteristics of the third control region 40 are selected such that the strain energy release rate within the third control region 40 is greater than that of the second control region 38 to discourage disbond initiation and growth, as well as in-plane shear and peeling moments.
Attention is now directed to
The strain energy release rate within one of more of the control regions 36, 38, 40 may be tailored by forming a scarf or tapered joint (not shown) between the laminate layer 32 and the composite structure 24. The strain energy release rate may also be tailored by providing gaps (not shown) in certain areas between plies 52 in a manner that may alter the mechanical properties of the laminate layer 32 in each of the control regions 36, 38, 40. Also, it may be possible to employ differing orientation sequences of the plies 52 in order to aid in achieving the defined control regions 36, 38, 40. Orientation refers to the layup angle or direction of reinforcing fibers in a ply, for example and without limitation, 0°, 30°, 60°, 90° and/or 0°, +45°, −45°, 90°.
In the example illustrated in
Attention is now directed to
As mentioned above in connection with
The particular values of the interlaminar fracture toughness for the regions 36, 38, 40 will depend upon the application and the particular mechanical properties of the plies 52 that are present within the regions 36, 38, 40. Moreover, the values for the interlaminar fracture toughness within the regions 36, 38, 40 may be tailored to the properties of the adhesive layer 34 (see
As previously discussed, the interlaminar fracture toughness within the regions 36, 38, 40 may be controlled by using differing prepreg materials in the plies 52, and/or by overlapping the plies 52 between adjacent ones of the regions 36, 38, 40, and/or by using different ply orientation sequences within each of the regions 36, 38, 40. For example,
Referring now particularly to
From the forgoing, it can be appreciated that each of the regions 36, 38, 40 possesses a unique interlaminar fracture toughness in the tailored laminate patch 32a, and/or the bond joint 42 (
Referring concurrently to
As shown in
Attention is now directed to
At 84, a layer 34 of adhesive is formed, and at 86, the adhesive layer 34 is divided into multiple sections 44, 46, 48. The regions 36, 38, 40 of the tailored patch 32a are then aligned, as shown at step 88, with the sections 44, 46, 48 of the adhesive layer 34. The adhesive layer 34 is used to bond the tailored patch 32a to a composite structure, as shown at step 90. At step 92, the patch may be visually inspected over time to determine the condition of the patch in each of the regions 36, 38, 40.
Attention is now directed to
A first inner control region 96 is generally circular in shape and substantially covers the inconsistent area 22. A second, outer control region 98 is generally ring shaped and surrounds the first control region 96. A ring shaped, first separation zone 102 is contiguous to and is disposed between the first and second control regions 96, 98. A third, ring shaped control region 100 surrounds the second control region 98, and a second ring shaped separation zone 104 is contiguous to and disposed between the second and third control regions 98, 100. Finally, a third, ring shaped separation zone 106 is contiguous to and surrounds the third control region 100. As best seen in
In this example, the layer of adhesive 97 that forms the bondline 42 possesses substantially constant characteristics over substantially the entire area of the layer 97, however, in some embodiments, the adhesive layer 97 may be tailored to possess differing characteristics over this area, similar to the adhesive layer 34 employed in the embodiment illustrated in
In the illustrated embodiment, one or more characteristics of the laminate patch 95 are tailored in order to achieve the control regions 96, 98, 100 and separation zones 102, 104, 106. These characteristics may be tailored in a manner similar to that of the embodiment previously described in connection with
In the illustrated embodiment, the laminate patch 95 is tailored such that the interlaminar fracture toughness of the control regions 96, 98, 100 increase outwardly from the inner control region 96. Thus, the interlaminar fracture toughness of the second, outer control region 98 is greater than that of the first, inner control region 96, and the interlaminar fracture toughness of the third, outer control region 100 is greater than that of the second, outer control region 98. However, in other embodiments, depending on the application and design goals, the laminate patch 95 may tailored such that the interlaminar fracture toughness of the control regions 96, 98, 100 increase progressively inwardly from the outer control region 100 to the inner control region 96.
In the illustrated embodiment, the interlaminar fracture toughness of each of the separation zones 102, 104, 106 is greater than the interlaminar fracture toughness of the first, inner control region 96. In one embodiment, the interlaminar fracture toughness of the separation zones 102, 104, 106 is at least approximately 25% greater than the interlaminar fracture toughness of the first, inner control layer 96.
The interlaminar fracture toughnesses of the separation zones 102, 104, 106 may be the same, or different from each other. The area and dimensions of the control regions 96, 98, 100 as well as the separation zones 102, 104, 106 may vary with the application. Generally, however, the width of each of the separation zones 102, 104, 106 is generally less than the widths of the control regions 96, 98, 100 which they separate. The particular values selected for the interlaminar fracture toughnesses may vary with the application. For example, and without limitation, in one practical embodiment, the constant Mode 1 interlaminar fracture toughnesses of control regions 96, 98, and 100 may be, respectively, 1.5 in-#/in2, 2.5 in-#/in2 and 3.0 in-#/in2, wherein the constant Mode 1 interlaminar fracture toughness of each of the separation zones 102, 104, 106 is 2.0 in-#/in2.
The patch 94 regulates the magnitude of the peak adhesive stresses and loads at the boundaries of the regions 96, 98, 100 and zones 102, 104, 106 that are transferred through the adhesive layer 97. Each region 96, 98, 100 and zone 102, 104, 106 has the ability to contain and localize the disbond 105. The multiple regions and zones may compliment the global adhesive stresses in the bond line 42 to contain and resist growth of the disbond 105 even in thick wing composite structures 24.
In use, a disbond 105 may be initiated near the inconsistent area 22 within the first, inner control region 96. As the applied load caused by the disbond 105 increases, the disbond 105 may advance or propagate outwardly as shown by arrow 107 toward the second, outer control region 98. As the disbond 105 approaches the second control region 98, the disbond 105 encounters and enters the first separation zone 102 which, as previously mentioned, has an interlaminar fracture toughness greater than that of the inner control region 96. The first separation zone 102 functions to defuse the fracture energy of the disbond 105 before it enters the second, outer control region 98 which has an interlaminar fracture toughness greater than that of the first, inner control region 96. As a result of this diffusion of fracture energy by the first separation zone 102, the growth or advancement of the disbond 105 is slowed and may be completely retarded before it enters the second control region 98, as shown by the arrow 110.
The second, outer control region 98 may function as a disbond depository by reducing the local peak shear and peel stresses to levels that may be nearly benign. At such stress levels, the patch 94 may be able to react any mid-span out of plane deformation due to a change in the stiffness between the patch 94 and the composite structure 24. In the event that the applied load continues to increase to a level that causes the disbond 105 to grow or advance again at 111, the third, outer control region 100 functions as a second disbond depository due to the fact that its interlaminar fracture toughness is greater than that of the second control region 98. Thus, the third control region 100 may mitigate shear-lag effects that may occur in the rework provided by the patch 94. Again, as the disbond 105 grows and advances from the second region 98 to the third control region 100, the second separation zone 104 functions to defuse the fracture energy of the disbond, thereby slowing its growth before it enters the third, outer control region 100, as shown by the arrow 113. The third separation zone 106 likewise functions to defuse the fracture energy of the disbond as it reaches the outer edge 109 of the third control region 100, thereby reducing the possibility of the disbond advancing beyond the outer edge 109.
The multiple disbond control regions 96, 98, 100 in combination with the separation zones 102, 104, 106 result in a patch 94 that may retard or arrest the growth of either a longitudinal or transverse disbond or a discrete type inconsistency 22 in a composite, metallic or hybrid material structure 24. The patch 94 may be useful under most loading conditions regardless of whether they are developed under hoop or skin in-plane shear stresses within the structure 24 due to pressurization loads on an aircraft, including up or down bending due to lateral gusts or maneuver loads. The stress singularities that may develop at the tip (not shown) of the disbond 105 may be drastically reduced by the patch 94. As a result, the patch 94 may retard disbond extension under both static and negative reverse fatigued loads.
Embodiments of the disclosure may find use in a variety of potential applications, particularly in the transportation industry, including for example, aerospace, marine and automotive applications. Thus, referring now to
During production, component and subassembly manufacturing 128 and system integration 130 of the aircraft 122 takes place. The patch 94 may be used during production to rework inconsistencies that occur during the manufacturing 128 and/or system integration 130. Thereafter, the aircraft 122 may go through certification and delivery 132 in order to be placed in service 134. The patch 94 may be used to rework inconsistencies in order to achieve certification of the aircraft 122 and/or to satisfy delivery requirements. While in service by a customer, the aircraft 122 is scheduled for routine maintenance and service 136 (which may also include modification, reconfiguration, refurbishment, and so on). The patch 94 may be used while the aircraft 122 is in service to rework areas of the aircraft 122 that may develop inconsistencies while in service, and the condition of the patch 94 may be checked as part of a periodic maintenance routine.
Each of the processes of method 120 may be performed or carried out by a system integrator, a third party, and/or an operator (e.g., a customer). For the purposes of this description, a system integrator may include without limitation any number of aircraft manufacturers and major-system subcontractors; a third party may include without limitation any number of vendors, subcontractors, and suppliers; and an operator may be an airline, leasing company, military entity, service organization, and so on.
As shown in
Systems and methods embodied herein may be employed during any one or more of the stages of the production and service method 120. For example, components or subassemblies corresponding to production process 128 may be fabricated or manufactured in a manner similar to components or subassemblies produced while the aircraft 122 is in service. Also, one or more embodiments may be utilized during the production stages 128 and 130, for example, by substantially expediting assembly of or reducing the cost of an aircraft 122. Similarly, one or more of embodiments may be utilized while the aircraft 122 is in service, for example and without limitation, to maintenance and service 136.
Although the embodiments of this disclosure have been described with respect to certain exemplary embodiments, it is to be understood that the specific embodiments are for purposes of illustration and not limitation, as other variations will occur to those of skill in the art.
This application is a divisional of application Ser. No. 12/706,799, filed Feb. 17, 2010, status pending, which is a continuation-in-part of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/400,519 filed Mar. 9, 2009; Ser. No. 12/400,475 filed Mar. 9, 2009; and Ser. No. 12/400,561 filed Mar. 9, 2009, all of which applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3995080 | Cogburn et al. | Nov 1976 | A |
4352707 | Wengler et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
4497404 | Lowrance | Feb 1985 | A |
4588626 | Cologna et al. | May 1986 | A |
4808253 | Mimbs | Feb 1989 | A |
4818584 | Eisenmann | Apr 1989 | A |
4820564 | Cologna et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4824500 | White et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4858853 | Westerman et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4912594 | Bannink et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4916880 | Westerman, Jr. | Apr 1990 | A |
4961799 | Cologna et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4967799 | Bradshaw et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4978404 | Westerman, Jr. | Dec 1990 | A |
5023987 | Wuepper et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5034254 | Cologna et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5190611 | Cologna et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5207541 | Westerman et al. | May 1993 | A |
5214307 | Davis | May 1993 | A |
5232962 | Dershem et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5344515 | Chenock, Jr. | Sep 1994 | A |
5492466 | Frailey | Feb 1996 | A |
5601676 | Zimmerman et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5618606 | Sherrick et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5620768 | Hoffmann, Sr. | Apr 1997 | A |
5626934 | Brewer | May 1997 | A |
5709469 | White et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5732743 | Livesay | Mar 1998 | A |
5868886 | Alston et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5882756 | Alston et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5993934 | Reese et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6149749 | McBroom | Nov 2000 | A |
6206067 | Kociemba et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6265333 | Dzenis et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6468372 | Kociemba et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6472758 | Glenn et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6656299 | Grosskrueger et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6680099 | Brewer | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6758924 | Guijt | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6761783 | Keller et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
7325771 | Stulc et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7398698 | Griess et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7404474 | Yamaki et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7628879 | Ackerman | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7935205 | Bogue et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8263212 | Care | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8409384 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8449703 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8524356 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8540909 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8617694 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8802213 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8828515 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
20010008161 | Kociemba et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20030075259 | Graham | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030188821 | Keller et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20050022923 | Korchnak et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050053787 | Yamasaki et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20060011435 | Yamaki et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060029807 | Peck | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060060705 | Stulc et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060198980 | Westerdahl | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060243860 | Kismarton | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070095457 | Keller et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100582 | Griess et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070289692 | Bogue et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20090053406 | Ackerman | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20100047541 | Care | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100227105 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100227106 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100227117 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100233424 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20130337214 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140076481 | Dan-Jumbo et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140238579 | Dan-Jumbo | Aug 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1775445 | Apr 2007 | EP |
1972429 | Sep 2008 | EP |
2055466 | May 2009 | EP |
WO2009026442 | Feb 2009 | WO |
WO2010104676 | Sep 2010 | WO |
WO2010104741 | Sep 2010 | WO |
WO2010104745 | Sep 2010 | WO |
WO2010104746 | Sep 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Notice of Allowance, dated Jul. 9, 2014, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,816, 12 pages. |
State Intellectual Office of PRC Notification of Third Office Action and English Translation, issued Jul. 30, 2015, regarding Application No. 201080007776.6, 6 pages. |
Office Action, dated May 23, 2013, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,489, 15 pages. |
Dan-Jumbo et al., “Predictable Bonded Rework of Composite Structures Using Tailored Patches,” U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,816 and Preliminary Amendment, filing date May 26, 2013, 76 pages. |
Dan-Jumbo et al., “Tapered Patch for Predictable Bonded Rework of Composite Structures,” U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,855 and Preliminary Amendment, filing date May 27, 2013, 56 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Mar. 20, 2014, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,816, 7 pages. |
Office Action, dated Jan. 8, 2014, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,855, 35 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated May 27, 2015, regarding Application No. PCT/US2015/012897, 10 pages. |
Office Action, dated Nov. 7, 2013, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,816, 26 pages. |
Office Action, dated Jan. 5, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,519, 21 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Jun. 7, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,519, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Oct. 18, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,519, 20 pages. |
International Search Report, dated Jun. 25, 2010, regarding Application No. PCT/US2010/025181 (WO2010104676), 3 pages. |
International Search Report, dated May 21, 2010, regarding Application No. PCT/US2010/026229 (WO2010104741), 3 pages. |
International Search Report, dated Jun. 29, 2010, regarding Application No. PCT/US2010/026252 (WO2010104745), 3 pages. |
International Search Report, dated Jun. 29, 2010, regarding Application No. PCT/US2010/026256 (WO2010104746), 7 pages. |
Baker, “Repair Techniques for Composite Structures,” In: Composite Materials in Aircraft Structures, Middleton (Ed.), Longman, Jan. 1, 1990, pp. 207-227. |
Berthelot, “Effect of the Stacking Sequence on Mat and Cloth Reinforcement Materials,” In: Composite Materials: Mechanical Behavior and Structural Analysis (Cole, Trans.), Springer Publishing, New York, 1998, pp. 312-345. |
Chang et al., “Properties and failure mechanisms of z-pinned laminates in monotonic and cyclic tension,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 37, No. 10, Oct. 2006, pp. 1501-1513. |
Chang, “A Study on Fracture Toughness of Advanced Structural Composites,” Naval Air Development Center Report No. EW-4-73, Jul. 1973, 113 pages. |
Dan-Jumbo et al., “Bonded Patch Having Multiple Zones of Fracture Toughness,” U.S. Appl. No. 12/706,799, filed Feb. 17, 2010, 47 pages. |
Dan-Jumbo et al., “Discretely Tailored Multi-Zone Bondline for Fail-Safe Structural Repair,” U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,489, filed Oct. 13, 2010, 43 pages. |
Gacoin et al., “Comparison between experimental and numerical study of the adhesively bonded scarf joint and double scarf joint: Influence of internal singularity created by geometry of the double scarf joint on the damage evolution,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 29, No. 5, Jul. 2009, pp. 572-579. |
Harman et al., “Improved design methods for scarf repairs to highly strained composite aircraft structure,” Composite Structures, vol. 75, No. 1-4, Sep. 2006, pp. 132-144. |
Kan et al., “Advanced Certification Methodology for Composite Structures,” U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-96/111, Apr. 1997, 167 pages. |
Kelly, “Composite Structure Repair,” AGARD Report No. 716, Feb. 1984, 26 pages. |
Komoroski et al., “Stacking Sequence Effects and Delamination Growth in Graphite/Epoxy Laminates Under Compression-Dominated Fatigue Loading,” In: Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture—Fifth Volume, Martin (Ed.), ASTM International, Oct. 1995, pp. 249-267. |
Mouritz, “Review of z-pinned composite laminates,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 38, No. 12, Dec. 2007, pp. 2383-2397. |
Prieto, “Modeling and analysis of crack turning on aeronautical structures,” Doctoral Thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Apr. 2007, pp. 83-106. |
Seng, “Laminate Design,” In: Handbook of Composites, Second Edition, Peters (Ed.), Chapman & Hall, London, 1998, pp. 686-695. |
Tomblin et al., “Assessment of Industry Practices for Aircraft Bonded Joints and Structures,” U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-05/13, Jul. 2005, 245 pages. |
Tomblin et al., “Bonded Repair of Aircraft Composite Sandwich Structures,” U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-03174, Feb. 2004, 121 pages. |
Wang et al., “Optimum Shapes for Minimising Bond Stress in Scarf Repairs,” Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Congress on Applied Mechanics (ACAM2007), Dec. 2007, 6 pages. |
“Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure,” U.S. Department of Transporation Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR 25.571, Apr. 1998, 3 pages. Accessed May 29, 2012 from http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part—25-571.html. |
Office Action, dated Dec. 22, 2011, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,475, 15 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Jun. 7, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,475, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Oct. 29, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,475, 20 pages. |
Office Action dated Jan. 2, 2013, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/706,799, 33 pages. |
Office Action, dated Jul. 14, 2011, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/401,541, 13 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Dec. 16, 2011, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/401,541, 10 pages. |
Office Action, dated Jul. 24, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/401,541, 18 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Dec. 14, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/401,541, 13 pages. |
Office Action, dated Feb. 1, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,560, 13 pages. |
Final Office Action, dated Jul. 5, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,561, 15 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Feb. 22, 2013, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/400,561, 19 pages. |
Office Action, dated Nov. 9, 2012, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,489, 29 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Apr. 9, 2014, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 13/902,855, 12 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated May 6, 2016, regarding U.S. Appl. No. 14/085,514, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140020221 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12706799 | Feb 2010 | US |
Child | 13945475 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12400475 | Mar 2009 | US |
Child | 12706799 | US | |
Parent | 12400561 | Mar 2009 | US |
Child | 12400475 | US | |
Parent | 12400519 | Mar 2009 | US |
Child | 12400561 | US |